omnia1911

Of course they were sitting out there, because the shooter didn't activate them. This is the part of the discussion we can't forget. It is easier (advantageous) to engage a stationary target rather than a moving one.

This would be my call. The range equipment worked as designed, but the shooter decided to make it perform outside of its specifications. It is probably poor stage design, that runs the risk of being tossed for functioning inconsistently.

I think we have too many classifications.

I say leave Limited Division alone. But, with a new Single Stack Division coming into the picture, I see no reason not to allow the smaller calibers to score major there, as long as everyone has the same capacity limits. It might add to the interest in that division. I'd consider building a 38super SS to compete in that division if I could score major with it.

The rules don't require an X on the penalty steel. It is optional, in lieu of a color difference. If someone decides to use yellow and green colored steel, with the green steel being the penalty steel, a colored blind person will have difficulty telling the two apart. Yellow/green color blindness is the most common (99%). Blue/Yellow also exists, but is rare. Total color blindness (seeing in only shades of gray) is extremely rare. Maybe the rules should provide for someone who is color blind to request of the RM that any penalty steel be marked with an X in cases like this.

Sure glad I'm not color blind. A stage like that with both scoring and penalty metal targets would be a nightmare.

I think leaving it optional for the shooter to engage any targets SHO while transporting the powder keg to the activator box is the best way to go. If it is the fastest way to shoot the stage, SHO will be used. Let the shooter figure it out. Depending on the layout of the arrays, some shooters may put the object down while shooting, especially those that have to reload. The stage procedure could be as simple as: "Engage targets as they become visible. Ports must be opened by depositing the powder keg into the activator box." I see no need to stipulate when the powder keg has to be dropped into the activator box. The COF will dictate that. The shooter has to get the ports open to see the targets (provided they are only visible through the ports). Therefore, it will be done before the last shot is fired. It can get a little tricky adhering to the freestyle philosphy when dealing with props that require specific actions to make them work.

I think you need to simplify your stage design. Gadgets and gizmos as part of a stage design significantly increase the possibility of REF, and increase the possibility of the stage being tossed. If you have to add a lawyerly rider to the course description in order to control what a shooter may do (game) during his COF, you probably should rethink the stage design. Having said all that.... I'm guessing that you are trying to prevent a shooter from depositing the object into the activator box after engaging all of the targets, and while off the clock, thus, technically complying with the stage description and avoiding any penalties. One way to make sure that the shooter has the object in hand while engaging the first array of targets is to put enough distance between where the object is to be picked up and where the first array of targets are, so that it would add considerable time to run to the first array and engage the targets, run back to pick up the object, then to retrace ground that you had already covered to get to the second array of targets. Want to keep the object out of someone's mouth? Make it heavy enough, and of such an odd shape and size, it wouldn't be a consideration. You want it in the shooter's hand instead of tucked under their arm to force strong hand only shots? Why? Let the shooter decide how to manage those shots. It's freestyle. Not knowing how your stage is laid out, none of this may apply, or there may be other possible solutions. Your stage design seems to veer away from the freestyle philosophy of the rule book. Being that this stage is for a major match, was it approved of by NROI?

I think it it best that all the scoring metal targets on a stage be of the same solid color. And, just as the rules state that the scoring paper targets must be cardboard colored, they could have easily stated that scoring metal targets must be white, rather than "preferably white". The rules state that penalty metal targets must be clearly marked or of different color from the scoring targets. Problems could arise on a stage with both scoring and penalty metal targets where someone decides to paint each piece of steel a different color, including the penalty steel. This could result in a very confusing mess as the shooters try to remember which color scores and which penalizes. 4.1.2 Scoring targets used in all IPSC Handgun matches must be of a single color, as follows: 4.1.2.1 The scoring area of scoring paper targets must be of a typical cardboard color. 4.1.2.2 The entire front of scoring metal targets must be painted a single color, preferably white. 4.1.3 Penalty targets must be clearly marked or be of a single color different from scoring targets.

I have a completely different opinion. I feel that anytime 10.6.1 (DQ for USLC) is used as a FTDR...well, to me, that means the rule book has failed to address the issues. We have a pretty well written, and mature, rule book. It covers the bases pretty well. I think that is as it should be. It tends to take most of the subjectivity away from the Match Director. I think Troy (and others) has pointed out that the green book covers this pretty well. I made a bigger issue out of this by going off my experiences regarding the red book...failing to research the new (and proper) green book. Made a mountain out of a mole hill. (Carmoney, that is my "safe area". ) I see switching guns to suit a stage design as a clear case of dishonesty, at best, and cheating, at worse. Taking advantage of 5.7.1, and lying to match officials as to why you would be switching guns falls into these categories. I think 10.6.1 is not too harsh of a way to treat those who engage in this behavior. Rather than take subjectivity away from the match officials, 5.7.1.2 gives them more.

Those who may feel that 5.1.7.2 is a necessary component of 5.7.1 to keep competitors from engaging in the nefarious behavior of switching guns to suit a stage design, we have that rule in place already. It is 10.6.1. If the ROs and RM are working together, as they should be, the rats engaging in this activity can be flushed out quite easily.

I'm comfortable with 5.1.7, with the exception of 5.1.7.2. It is unnecessary. One cannot be gaining a competitive advantage if the substitute gun meets all the division requirements. It is as silly as saying that all guns used in a division must be identical so that no one gains a competitive advantage.

I propose that all IDPA stages start from the low ready; no holsters in the equation.

Naaah. The same people only win if it is 8 round arrays...and 8 rounds allowed loaded in the gun (not 8+1). That makes accuracy factor in more as well. If you have 8 rounds to make 8 shots...a miss puts costs you a standing reload. Huge. Those 8 round matches are some of the most popular around. And, they are hardly ever won by a shooter with a S_I. The reason the S_I guns don't win is that most of them don't have thier slides setup to lock back on an empty chamber...and shooting 8 on 8 puts a shooter at slide lock quite often. For those of us who don't have the pleasure of shooting your 8 round matches, could you explain the mechanics of those matches; guns allowed, divisions, stage design guidelines, etc.? Maybe others will take note and copy.

Some may believe that if USPSA pushes a 1911 SS division it will spur on a growth in the 1911 gun market, similar to what occurred with the S_I platform. The S_I market has been a big contributor to the IPSC game, and we are thankful for that, but the success of those two gun manufacturers was pretty unique, and I don't think that it can be duplicated with the 1911 manufacturers. One, it occurred at at time when IPSC had a much smaller number of divisions, and it was imperative that anyone wanting to be competitive in the game had to chase the latest technologies. S_I stepped into a very ripe and ready market with a patented and exclusive gun design. Two, anybody and their brothers uncle has access to 1911 parts and can build a gun, provided that they don't already have one in the safe. IPSC will not push sales of the 1911 to any great extent. Three, it may be 3 years before USPSA commits to this new division. Why would any 1911 manufacturer place his stock in that tentative marketplace? I'm positive that the minds at USPSA have already taken these thoughts into consideration. It is going to be an interesting ride though. Best of luck Gary.

I think those complaints would be better addressed by match directors and stage designers, especially since the level one match exemptions still exist. I'm a pretty lazy guy --- especially at 8 a.m., and I don't think it takes a whole lot of extra effort to design stages that offer shooters choices. Usually, building in lots of options, means that revolver shooters can reload on the move..... I'm pretty sure that you can't solve that problem by creating a rule ---- freestyle has to be learned amd freestyle stage design is still in its infancy most places..... It might help locally that a lot of our stage designers have experience shooting multiple divisions --- both hi-cap and 10 round.... Then you must be of the opinion that the rule limiting the number of rounds in a shooting position to 9 should be removed from the rule book. It isn't in the spirit of freestyle. The fact is that most MD and stage designers will not take the thoughtful approach that you do to stage design. They need to be compelled to follow some guidelines, thus the rule. In some cases, the rule book can't even get people to do the right thing. I like to run and gun with my 10 round SS in L10. If I am required to make static reloads, due to course design, in order to play in a 1911 SS division, I will stay in L10. I ain't afraid of no widebody! If the new SS division allows 10 rounds in a mag, I may reconsider it.

In No particular order: Two fellow C-Class Production shooters and I shoot in a friendly (and often very funny) rivalry twice a month. The problem solving required to break down a stage with only 10 rounds. The Risk/Reward tradeoff that sometimes entails. Minor scoring only. That most of my guns can play competitively in that division. Because it's not Limited/L10/Open. Because there's a local GM shooting Production most of the time. I'd object to USPSA making the change --- because I believe it's critically important that the divisional rules governing what equipment is legal remain stable. That said I'm not in favor of a "rule" limiting the number of rounds available form a single position --- good course design should take of that already. We try very hard where I shoot to not force revolver shooters to make standing reloads; I pretty much don't design 4 cardboard behind a port anymore. Occasionally I screw that up --- and I hear about if from my revolver shooters. I like that, because it makes me a better designer --- without dumbing a stage down to shoot a position with six shots five times in a row....... The shooters participating in the provisional SS division won't have to deal with anything nearly as troublesome as the revolver shooters do at every match --- and they should be telling their match directors when stage design isn't up to par. Or, even better, they might offer to desing a stage on a regular or irregular basis..... All valid reasons. I was surprised that you didn't mention that you shoot Production because you get to carry your gun and ammo behind your hip. You mentioned the complaints that revolver shooters have about stage design. I think those complaints have merit. Knowing that, I would hate to see USPSA design another division that will be just as problematic if they only allow 8 round mags for 1911 SS while shooting standard USPSA stages.

If the intent is to attract the IDPA shooters, why are we only going after the CDP shooters buy adding a 1911 SS division to our present match structure? Do you believe that CDP is the largest IDPA market? I also shoot IDPA and I have never heard a conversation at a match claiming, "If USPSA only had a 1911 SS division, I would play their game." Well, adding a 1911 SS division to the mix isn't going to cost USPSA headquarters anything, from what I can see, but it is rather a timid move, IMO. "One can never experience the joys of swimming by sticking their toe in the water."

I'm a dedicated production shooter --- and I HATE the idea of 24 round max stages. Revolver shooters shouldn't be forced to carry their ammo supply behind the hip either --- their reloads take long enough as it is..... I've been designing stages for a little more than two years now --- and I try to design 'em in such a way that Revolver shooters don't have to make a standing reload --- unless they miss or choose to...... I've shot the FGN in '03 and the "Run what ya brung" Nats in '04 --- I enjoyed the '04 match better....... I'm not sure there's a problem here that needs fixing --- but you might convince me with your next argument. As far as the creation of a provisional SS division --- L10 is the most popular division at my club. I'll be watching with interest to see where those shooters play if/when that division becomes a reality...... What is it about Production that appeals to you? Would you object to having the Production mag capacity reduced to 8 rounds at the matches you are presently shooting?

IDPA restricts the amount of mags/ammo carriers you can carry. I'm not suggesting any such restriction. Exactly where would people in this "carry" division be allowed to carry spare mags and speedloaders? My thoughts were to duplicate the present Production holster and ammo location rules, except Revolver would be allowed to carry their ammo, not their gun, forward of the hip.

Flex may be on to something. OK, everyone and their brother makes a 1911 single stack clone. Since you don't want a "Manufacturer Specific" division (i.e. Glock only), how about a polymer frame, DA only division, which would allow Glocks, CZ's, EAA's, Springfield (ooopppsss! XD is single action), Rugers, etc. That way the new division would be based on exactly the same principles as the proposed single stack division. Gary, I applaud you for thinking outside of the box and would love to see a single stack only division, just be prepared for all of the requests for other new divisions. By the way, if the single stack division doesn't go over well, you are always invited to come over to IDPA and shoot in CDP division. I like thinking outside of the box too, just as long as I don't find myself stepping into another one when I do.

I'm with you on everything you stated, but you loose me if you intend to have the 1911 SS division shoot 8 rounds from behind the hip at a 9 rounds from a shooting position match. I would see no reason to switch from L10, and I can see nothing that would entice an IDPA shooter to play that game either. It's not just about the type of gun. It is also about the context that the gun is used in.

Like I said, I'm not suggesting using IDPA rules, only USPSA rules. IDPA restricts the amount of mags/ammo carriers you can carry. I'm not suggesting any such restriction.

One reason for shooting L10 would be single stack shooters who don't like the idea of having mag pouches go so far behind their back. I'm honestly surprised that was adopted for production. I also don't think revolver shooters would be happy carrying 4-6 speedloaders per production rules either i.e. in a concealable manner. USPSA should not be in the business of mandating concealment gear for competition. In my opinion, USPSA is not and should not attempt to be like IDPA which is what this proposal reminds me of. I can also see this as being another wedge at the local club level where there aren't always that many shooters anyway. Revolver shooters would carry their ammo in a similar fashion to what IDPA revolver does (not behind the hip). Check out their rules. I'm not advocating that USPSA be like IDPA. I'm advocating USPSA rules, with minor mods, USPSA stage designs, with lower round counts, along with shooting fast, gaming, and everything else that makes USPSA fun. It is probably closer to the Single Stack Classic than IDPA. If you don't like 3 gun, don't play. If you don't like carry gun, don't play. There are others who would like to play the carry gun game USPSA style. Why limit that game to the Production guns?